Historic Responsibility for Referendum on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant

Historic Responsibility for Referendum on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 26, 2013

Summary: The KMT and DPP must not be allowed to stop or continue work on the 4NPP based on 2014 or 2016 political calculations. They must make their 4NPP referendum decision based on considerations of national security and historical responsibility. The referendum must be preceded by certification that the 4NPP is safe.

Full Text below:

On February 23, this newspaper published an editorial entitled, "Professionalism and Politics: Two Facets of the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant." The article pointed out that the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant (4NPP) must be professionally certified as safe. A public referendum may be politically necessary. But if professionals can certify that the 4NPP is safe, a public referendum is superfluous.

The Jiang Cabinet decided that given widespread chaos, it would halt construction on the 4NPP and call for a public referendum. It failed however to clarify whether the 4NPP was safe. Instead, it hurriedly called for a public referendum in August. Today it announced that outside experts will conduct a comprehensive review of 4NPP safety on April 2. If passes muster, they will certify it as safe. The inspection is expected to take six months. The results should be available by early October. As we can see, the previously planned August referendum failed to take this into account. The certification of the 4NPP, as well as the public referendum can be conducted according to the procedures recommended in this newspaper's Febuary 23 editorial.

the nuclear power debate involves essentially two positions. One is categorical opposition to nuclear power. Another is support for the continued use of nuclear power, predicated upon assurances of nuclear safety. In other words, no one is demanding that the 4NPP be put into operation if it is found to be unsafe. Therefore if the safety of the 4NPP cannot be confirmed, a referendum is superfluous. This appears to be the Executive Yuan's position.

Should work on the 4NPP be stopped or continued? The answer must take into account nearly 100 billion NT in investments. Will it be all for naught? It must also take into account the role of energy in our national security strategy. One must not underestimate the impact on the nation's survival. Therefore if the safety of the 4NPP has yet to be confirmed, a responsible government must not arbitrarily call for a referendum. Conversely, if experts can certify the 4NPP as safe, a responsible government must provide the public with a clear accounting. The public, after all, still supports "safe nuclear power." In other words, they support nuclear power as long as it is safe.

If experts cannot certify that the 4NPP is safe, then a referendum is superfluous. A referendum may not solve the problem even if experts certify the 4NPP as safe. One. Any expert certification will lead to a "Believers still believe, unbelievers still don't" outcome. Two. Nuclear power has become a political football. It will never find resolution.

This is why some DPP and KMT officials oppose any sort of referendum, and instead demand an immediate halt to construction. But such a demand is both anti-intellectual and un-democratic. First of all, experts have yet to determine whether the 4NPP is safe. Therefore demanding an immediate construction halt is anti-intellectual. Secondly, making a decision so critical to the nation's future without first seeking a referendum, is un-democratic.

Therefore, a referendum remains the best possible solution to an impossible problem. 4NPP problems need to be tackled in sequence. 1. First experts must certify that it is safe. 2. If it is found to be unsafe, a referendum is superfluous. 3. If experts certify it as safe, then we can hold a referendum.

If experts certify it as safe, we can then hold a referendum. The voter turnout must be as high as possible. Voter turnout must meet the one half of all eligible voters threshold. Some supporters of "safe nuclear power" feel that a low voter turnout, in which fewer than half of all eligible voters turn out, will defeat a construction halt. It will ensure that construction continues. But politically speaking this would be the worst possible result. It would hand those who oppose construction the perfect justification for continued protest. If voter turnout meets the one half threshold, and the result is a construction halt, it will at least reflect the will of the people. The people must work together for the future. Conversely, if the result is to continue construction, anti-nuclear sentiment may not die down. But supporters of "safe nuclear power" will at least have been heard, and will at least have had their wishes realized.

Therefore we oppose KMT and DPP officials who oppose a public referendum and demand an immediate construction halt. 1. A referendum has a precondition. Experts musf first certify the 4NPP as safe. 2. Stopping or continuing work on the 4NPP is a national security issue of unparalleled importance. The KMT and the DPP cannot arbitrarily decide whether to stop or continue work on it. They must allow the public to vote.

So-called "safe nuclear power" exists. The 1NPP, 2NPP, and 3NPP are concrete examples. If experts certify the 4NPP as safe, the next step is to clarify where the KMT and DPP stand on whether to stop or continue work on the 4NPP. Stopping or continuing work on the 4NPP is a national security issue that bears on Taiwan's future. Historical responsibility for this policy decision must be made clear. Following a public referendum, "members of the public" will disappear into the crowd. Therefore the political parties must be held responsible. In other words, we must first hold a pre-referendum policy debate. The political parties must put their policy positions on record.

The KMT and DPP must not be allowed to stop or continue work on the 4NPP based on 2014 or 2016 political calculations. They must make their 4NPP referendum decision based on considerations of national security and historical responsibility. The referendum must be preceded by certification that the 4NPP is safe.

核四的公民投票與歷史責任
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.03.26 03:03 am

本報二月二十三日社論，題為〈專業與政治：核四問題的兩個面向〉。文中指出：

應先在專業上確認核四的安全無虞，始有循政治途徑舉行公投的必要；但倘若在專業上不能確認核四的安全，也就沒有接續公投的問題了。

當時，江內閣在兵荒馬亂中決定核四停續訴諸公投，但未交代應否對核四安全先作確認，因此遽而發表在八月舉行公投；如今則宣示，將在四月二日由外部專家對核四的安全問題進行全面體檢並作出確認，預計需時半年，也就是至少到十月始有結果，可徵先前所稱八月公投，並未計入此確認計劃。現在，核四之專業確認與政治公投，已可回到本報二月二十三日社論所建議的程序。

核電的辯論，大致可分兩種立場。一是無論如何皆反核電；二是在核安的前提上，支持維持核電。也就是說，關於核四的辯論，不會出現「即使確認不安全，仍要核四上路」的第三種立場。因此，若不能先確認核四的安全性，即無訴諸公投的基礎。這似已是行政院如今所持立場。

核四的停續，非但涉及近四千億的投資是否空擲，更牽涉能源轉型的國安策略抉擇，對國家命脈影響之重大不容低估。因而，核四的安全若未經確認，負責任的政府當然不可率爾訴諸公投；反之，倘核四的安全在專業上能夠確認，負責任的政府亦不可不盡其努力，對社會作出明確交代。畢竟，社會上仍有支持「核安電」的民意，亦即「在核安前提下，支持核電」。

倘若核四的安全性得不到專業上的確認，即無舉辦公投的理由。不過，現今的問題卻是，即使獲得專業上的確認而訴諸公投，但有人認為公投亦未必能解決問題。因為：一、專業確認的結果，必仍是「信者恆信，不信者恆不信」；二、核四已成政治問題，也已成了沒完沒了的問題。

因此，在民進黨內及國民黨內皆出現「反對公投／立即停建」的聲音。但這樣的主張，卻是反智且反民主的。一、尚未確認核四安全與否，即主張停建，這是反智；二、如此牽涉國家命脈的重大議題而不訴諸公投，這是反民主。

所以，我們認為，公投仍是沒有辦法中的辦法，核四問題的處理程序仍應是：一、先在專業上作出安全確認。二、如果確認不安全，即不必舉行公投。三、如果確認安全，再舉行公投。

假設確認安全而舉行公投，即應全力衝高投票率，使之跨越「投票率必須過半」的門檻。因為，有些「核安電」的支持者認為，降低投票率，使投票率不過半，即可否決停建之議，而達成續建目的；但這在政治上可能是最壞的結果，也給了主張停建者升高抗爭的理由。接下來，倘投票率過半，而得到停建的答案，這畢竟是民意的抉擇，也是全民必須共同面對的未來；反之，倘若得到續建的答案，雖不可能使反核者就此偃旗息鼓，但畢竟亦使主張「核安電」的民意得到伸張。

因而，我們對於國民黨與民進黨內「反對公投／立即停建」的主張不以為然。因為：一、公投是以在專業上確認核四安全為前提；二、核四無論停續存廢皆是重大無比的國安議題，除了交給公投決定，國民黨及民進黨皆不能擅自使之續，也不能擅自使之廢。

倘經確認核四安全（畢竟天下仍有「核安電」，核一二三即是），接下來就要辨明國民黨及民進黨在核四停續上的政策立場。因為，核四停續可謂是影響台灣未來榮枯興衰的無比重大的國安議題，這是一個必須辨明歷史責任的政策抉擇；但在「公民投票」後，「公民」即消失在人群之中，未來若要追究歷史責任，只能責問應當承負責任的政黨。也就是必須經由公投的辯論過程，讓各政黨的政策立場留下紀錄。

國民黨與民進黨不能只站在二○一四及二○一六的選舉算計上看核四停續，必須站在國安抉擇與歷史責任的高度來看核四公投；而公投，應以確認核四安全為前提。